Strategy for the South East China Sea: U.S. Bid for Full Spectrum Global Dominance [5 of 6]


According to reliable sources the countries in Asia that are targeted for ”balkanization” on the basis of ethnic and religious diversity by the Soros funded UN Interagency Framework Team for Preventive Action are: Burma/Myanmar, China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, Russia, and Sri Lanka.
Other Asian nations that are either being directly or indirectly targeted by Western power brokers, or which are being positioned into conflict with targeted nations include among other, Afghanistan, Georgia, Ossetia, Chechnya, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kirghistan, Uzbekistan, Thailand, Vietnam, Lao, and the Philippines.
·

THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ILLEGAL INTRERNATIONAL COURTS & POLITICIZED TRIALS – A PSEUDO-LEGALISTIC POLITICAL WITCH-HUNT & VICTORS JUSTICE

·

by Christopher Black., James Henry Fetzer, Alex Mezyaev, Christof Lehmann

·

·

Note for WoP readers: In this part of their thesis, the authors describe the strategem adopted by the US and her partners as to how the countries in the developing or even the developed world can be ‘moulded’ to meet the sinister agenda set by the neoconservtives outside the ambit of the White House or of those sitting within Washington’s presidential palace.

The modus operandi of this stratagem is now visible in Pakistan where ethnic, racial, geographical and economic factors are being fomented and then hyped up to achieve the nefarious agenda set by the US and her allies.

The situation is already being exploited on these lines in Pakistan to orchestrate a situation whereby the US controlled UN would be prompted to suggest an humanitarian intervention as has been done in case of Libya and now being implemented in Syria as well.

In particular are the points mentioned under

COMMON DENOMINATORS IN US/NATO SUBVERSION STRATEGIES, THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF IRREGULAR WARFARE AND SUBVERSION

and see for yourself how these subversive strategies are being employed to destabilise different nations in South East and South Asia including Pakistan.

And when I view these points in context of our tribal areas, Karachi and Balochistan, the modus operandi again becomes amply manifest. Its therefore for our policy makers and the leaders to see how they can galvanise the nation to thwart such sinister agendas. I am, however, afraid that henchmen of the west would do everything that would help the planners in Washington to do exactly what they want, for they go according to the Punjabi saying: “Koi maray koi jeeway, Lallo ghol patashay peeway” (whether somebody may die, or may live, “I dont care “). Such attitudionists and our of leaders of the sort whether this country gains or not, would do everything which would let them have their pie and that’s exactly what they want. [Nayyar]

***

Whereas the systematic erosion of international law is one alley that is leading towards a return to barbarism, the establishment of pseudo-legal international courts which are being used by NATO and allied nations for a pseudo-legalistic political witch-hunt and the implementation of victors’ justice against those who have fallen victims to NATO´s ”interventions” is an equally dangerous alley towards barbarism. Indeed, it may even be more dangerous than the outright violation of international laws and conventions because here the illegal aggression is disguised as legitimate justice.

The ICTY, ICTR, SCSL, SCL, and similar special courts and tribunals are such Quasi-Judicial Institutions. Modern international law does not provide any legal basis for the creation of any of the above mentioned institutions. Their utility is to provide ”legal” sanction to the already unlawfully achieved results of covert or overt illegal wars, aggression  or interventions.

While these quasi-judicial tribunals are unlawful in the first place, their methodology of achieving ”desired results” is even more so, since new rules and regulations are written on an ad hoc basis to secure convictions, as was the case at the ICTY and ICTR and others.

The results of such ”International Criminal Justice” are

the conviction of mainly Serbs through rigged show trials and the demonstrative acquittal of real perpetrators who belonged to the NATO allied, Al Al Qaeda associated Kosovo Liberation Army, also known as KLA/UCK, at the ICTY;

the conviction of Hutus through the same rigged show trials at the ICTR which acts to protect the criminals of the RPF, and its western allies, the very ones who provoked and prosecuted the war in Rwanda,

the conviction of Khmer Rouge members while the leaders and military officers of the USA are granted complete impunity for the devastating carpet bombing of Cambodia which destroyed the irrigation systems and led to a collapse of the society,

so on at the other tribunals.

These tribunals all are part of a system of show trials designed to demonize the former regimes of the countries concerned, to justify the US et al aggression both direct and indirect, against the countries concerned and to cover up the real role of the west in those wars.

The very creation of the International Criminal Court, ICC, is in fact another step towards the deterioration of international law due to the fact that the UN Security Council, notwithstanding the position of a given state to the ICC, which includes non-signatory states, can refer a case to the ICC Statute.

This creates the potential for situations where a non-signatory state to the treaty may force another non-signatory state to the same treaty to be bound by the treaty non of the two has signed. This state of affairs is an explosion of the very nature of international law at its very base.

Indeed, the USA refuses to be bound by the Rome Statute in any way and has stated that if any of its officers are ever charged and arrested by The ICC they will use force to obtain their release. This is nothing less than gangsterism.

The results of such justice will invariably be highly politicized show trials and victors’ justice, and it is indeed precisely what has occurred at the ICC since it was established.

COMMON DENOMINATORS IN US/NATO SUBVERSION STRATEGIES AND THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF IRREGULAR WARFARE AND SUBVERSION

There are certain common denominators that are part of every attempted subversion:

The establishment or presence of a foreign influence within the targeted nations.

The use of domestic elements, such as a minority political party, the use of dissenting political organizations, organizations that represent ethnic or cultural diversity, the use of militant opposition movements, ethnic and religious minorities, exile governments, terrorist organizations, and/or any other factors that can be used to either create or aggravate internal contests or struggles.

• The attempt to either overthrow a government or to destabilize the country sufficiently to justify an intervention under a pretext like countering terrorism or by use of perversions of international law like the responsibility to protect.

• The co-opting of geo-politically significant locations, access to resources and markets, and the denying of access to resources and markets for antagonistic nations or those who are siding with antagonistic nations.

INSTITUTIONALIZED SUBVERSION

As discussed above, NATO has since its 25th Summit in Chicago in 2012, made ”interventions”, which implies cooperation with illegitimate militant organizations, an integrated part of its official doctrine. xliii (ibid.)

The fact that NATO has made subversion the primary instrument for expansionism is further emphasized by the content of a Training Circular that is being used with the US Special Forces at Ft. Bragg, North Carolina.

The Training Circular, TC 18-01, which is so sensitive that it is provided with a destruction notice that instructs owners of the document to destruct it by any possible means to prevent unauthorized dissemination, states among other:

” Training Circular (TC) 18-01, Special Forces Unconventional Warfare, defines the current United States (U.S.) Army Special Forces (SF) concept of planning and conducting Unconventional Warfare (UW) operations. For the foreseeable future U.S. Forces will predominantly engage in irregular warfare (IW) operations.

The intent of U.S. UW efforts is to exploit a hostile power´s political, military, economic, and psychological vulnerabilities by developing and sustaining resistance forces to accomplish U.S. strategic objectives.

Combat support includes all of the activities of indirect and direct support in addition to combat operations.
The TC 18-01 has been published on nsnbc in its entirety and is downloadable in PDF format. xliv

It is normal that a nation entertains special operations units for defense purposes. What makes the TC 18-01 and implicitly US/NATO military doctrine uniquely criminal, is that the TC 18-01 clearly states that the US will predominantly be fighting ”irregular wars” in the foreseeable future, and that it in the form of the TC 18-01 provides a step by step manual for manufacturing political opposition into dissent, dissent into resistance and terrorism, terrorism into insurgency, with the explicit goal to overthrow the legitimate government of a targeted, sovereign nation; with the explicitly expressed purpose to accomplish U.S. Strategic Objectives.

It can hardly be emphasized enough that the combination of the US/NATO´s illegal warfare, combined with interventions based on a presumed responsibility to protect a targeted population from the crisis which it itself manufactures, combined with an absolute and overt disregard for international law and the institutionalization of quasi judicial instruments, constitutes a direct road towards global tyranny. Global Tyranny is merely a less euphemistic synonym for U.S. Global Full Spectrum Dominance.

This quest for global tyranny is inherently opposed to any peaceful co-existence between sovereign nations. It  although is making use of ethnic diversity, opposed to ethnic tolerance, It is, also making use of human rights and slogans about democracy, inherently opposed to human rights, justice, and self-determination.

It has, since 2010 begun to intensify the targeting of

Nepal,

Burma,

Pakistan,

Thailand,

Lao,

Vietnam,

the DPRK,

and even its presumed ally, the Philippines with the purpose to create a crisis about the South China Sea.

INTENSIFIED IMPLEMENTATION OF US/NATO GLOBAL FULL SPECTRUM DOMINANCE IN ASIA

Nepal – The Exemplary Destruction of a Nation State, Sponsored by Soros. Nepal´s geo-political position, its richness in ethnic, religious, cultural and political diversity, and the fact that the targeting of Nepal is about to mature, makes Nepal a perfect model on which US/NATO subversion strategies can be explained. A closer look at Nepal lets us understand the modus operandi for US/NATO subversion so we are able to better recognize the red flags in other Asian nations.

NOW NEPAL, BUT WAIT WHEN R2P OR ‘HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION’ BEFALLS WHOLE OF ASIA

Until 2006 Nepal was governed more or less exclusively by the King and the Nepali royal family. It was until then one of the worlds oldest functioning monarchies. The royal family of Nepal had very good ties to both British and Danish royalty. In spite of its landlocked geo-political position in Asia, it was strongly oriented towards Europe. The position of Nepal as a European aligned Asian monarchy had its basis in post-colonial times. A subsequent cold war made Nepal a front-line state between the capitalist and the socialist blocks.

The Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) became the ruling party during the Nepalese Constituent Assembly elections in 2008. The CPN(M) led a coalition government until May 4, 2009.
The Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) was previously the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), until it formally unified with the Communist Party of Nepal in January 2009, resulting in its full, current name: the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist).

Subsequent to the end of the cold war, and in fact with the transition towards a more open, joint venture based Chinese economy, the position of the royal Family and Nepal as post-colonial, cold-war front-line state became rapidly obsolete. European support for the monarchy dwindled and a long suppressed, legitimate popular demand for political, legal and social change became ever more outspoken.

From 1996 to 2006 the then illegal Maoist Party of Nepal fought a bitter rebellion against the monarchy. The rebellion succeeded due to the overwhelming support from the population in rural districts. In 2006 the rebellion resulted in political and legal reforms. After the first post-rebellion elections the Maoists held almost 40 % of the Constituent Assembly.

While the UK, other Western powers and India had responded to the rebellion with gravest concerns and somewhat ambivalent support for the old regime, the prospect of a Nepalese National Assembly in which the Maoist Party held almost 40 % of the seats and where other Communist parties were represented too provoked a much less ambivalent response.

ETHNICITY

The New Parliament embarked on the mission of re-organizing Nepal. The Maoist party envisioned a new model that was based on the distribution of power to local communities. A State Restructuring Commission was formed which should suggest how the old, centralized Nepal could delegate more political influence to the people, to regions and to communities.

Nepal is, although poor with respect to economy, extremely rich in culture and ethnicity, and until recently it also was rich in tolerance and respect for diversity. This ethnic diversity, however, was also a pure treasure trove for anyone, like the United Kingdom, the E.U., the USA, and Soros, but who would not accept a Nepal that had become so self-confident that it began implementing a foreign policy that did no longer accept dictates from the traditional and modo-colonial powers.

The population of Nepal is composed of over 100 ethnic minorities and over 300 castes. It is a situation that is potentially catastrophic for a nation that is being targeted by foreign influences who have centuries of experience in colonizing the world with the aid of the ”divide and conquer” strategy. What complicated the matter for Nepal and what makes it so easy to be taken advantage of is, that it is impossible to create regions along ethnic lines without creating new minorities in each of the federations regions. It is a situation much like that in Serbia and Bosnia Herzegovina.

FEDERALISM

The Maoist Party originally intended to create a secular state with regions along community lines, with regional popular committees and administrations. Without focus on ethnicity, religion or castes. The question why the restructuring of Nepal went awry can be answered with two words; ”Foreign Interests”. We will even see that some of the names that were instrumental in carving up Yugoslavia and in creating ethnic violence in Bosnia have reappeared in Nepal.

FOREIGN INTERESTS, SOROS AND THE UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK TEAM

The Hungarian born multi-billionaire and self-proclaimed philanthropist George Soros is the main sponsor of the United Nations Interagency Framework Team for Preventive Action, short FT. The FT has since 2006 become very active in Nepal. We will hear more about Soros when discussing the South China Sea and the International Crisis Group which he also sponsors, but for now let us focus on Nepal.

In Nepal, the United Nations is active with twenty-eight UN agencies and departments who are working directly under the superintendence of the Soros sponsored Framework Team in Nepal. xlv Among other are represented the IMF, FAO, UNFPA, UNICEF, UNDP, UNODPC, UN-WFP, WHO, and the World Bank.

The UN Interagency Framework Team for Preventive Action is led by the US-national Gay Rosenblum-Kumar. In Nepal it is represented by Ian Martin. Martin is known for having implemented ”Structural changes in other ”targeted nations”, including Bosnia Herzegovina and Cyrenaica, Libya. In both cases the helpful interventions of the FT and Ian Martin were correlated with considerable ethnic violence.

Besides its involvement in Bosnia and Nepal, the Framework team has over the last decade supported similar initiatives toward ”structural reforms and change” in Ecuador, Fiji, Lesotho, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea Bissau, Guyana, Kenya where the US is currently aggressively trying to establish a stronger military footprint, Mauritania, the Maldives, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, where President Laurent Gbagbo was ousted with the help of the UN and France in 2010, in preparation for the war on Libya, Sudan, Yemen, Zimbabwe, where President Robert Mugabe implemented much needed post-colonial land reforms and who is one of the last remaining anti-imperialist African leaders. What each and every of these nations have in common is that they are being targeted for a move towards a foreign imposed federalism that throws the doors wide open for the UN/US/NATO alliances´ divide and conquer policy.

The Soros funded NGO NEFIN is advocating indigenous Nepali peoples rights, among other with respect to ”indigenous land ownership”. xlvi NEFIN is naturally advocating that every and each of the ethnic minorities in Nepal ”must” be granted equal access to the ownership of land.

As discussed above, Nepal is a nation with over 100 ethnic groups and over 300 castes. Implementing square inch justice in ethnically based land-ownership rights is utterly impossible, regardless whether Nepal implements a six or an eleven regions model. Even if it would subdivide each of eleven regions into numerous sub-regions there would still remain a basis for conflicts.

What Nepal experiences is a cynical attempt to divide the nation along ethnic lines and to create a deadlocked situation that will be exploded into an unstoppable cycle of violence whenever it is most opportune for those who have targeted the country. The victims are national unity, diversity, tolerance and respect, and the people of Nepal who are being railroaded into massacring one another.

Some ethnic based violence has already occurred in Nepal and it is systematically being aggravated under the pretense of humanitarian principles. Unless the Soros / UN Interagency Framework Team for Preventive Action under Gay Rosenblum-Kumar and Ian Martin are opposed; unless the seeding of ethnic division by NEFIN, are opposed; it will merely be a question about what time would be the most convenient for the USA, UK, and NATO to aggravate a matured crisis to the extent that another ”humanitarian intervention” under the guise of an assumed ”responsibility to protect” will be ignited.

The following Asian countries are according to reliable sources also being targeted for ”balkanization” on the basis of ethnic and religious diversity by the Soros funded UN Interagency Framework Team for Preventive Action:

Burma/Myanmar, China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, Russia, Sri Lanka.

Other Asian nations that are either being directly or indirectly targeted by Western power brokers, or which are being positioned into conflict with targeted nations include among other, Afghanistan, Georgia, Ossetia, Chechnya, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kirghistan, Uzbekistan, Thailand, Vietnam, Lao, and the Philippines.

The ongoing violent clashes between Buddhist and Muslim groups in Burma, the clashes between so called red shirts and yellow shirts in Thailand, the positioning of the Philippines for becoming a front line state in the containment of Chinese access to resources, transportation of resources and Chinese access to Asian markets.

The list of subversive activities is virtually inexhaustible.

This development should raise warning flags about the volatility, vulnerability and potential dangers the region will face, unless the US/NATO ambition for global, full spectrum dominance is challenged by the development of coherent and consistent national and regional strategies.

THE SOUTH CHINA SEA:

How could Soros and the International Crisis Group let a perfectly good Crisis be wasted without making use of it?

Much has been written and discussed of China’s “String of Pearls,” which refers to the ports that China has constructed or financed in Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Burma, in exchange for commercial and military access rights.
The two biggest pearls are the Gwadar port in Pakistan and the Hamabotota port in Sri Lanka, . Chittagong in Bangladesh and Sittwe in Myanmar are two minor ports that are off the beaten track for China’s energy import sealanes. 

STRING OF PEARLS.

A 2006 study for the U.S. Army by Christopher J. Pehrson, called ”String of Pearls: Meeting the Challenge of China´s Rising Power Across the Asian Littoral” xlvii demonstrates the US/NATO´s condescending, modo-colonialist and ethnocentric perception of Asia as ”their” backyard, ”their repository of resources” and ”their markets that are being threatened by China”. It analyzes Chinese markets in the region as ”China´s String of Pearls”, that threatens US/NATO modo-colonial hegemony and primacy.

The nature and content of this military commissioned study demonstrate explicitly that even nations who align themselves with US/NATO foreign policy are potential targets for aggression and subversion unless these nations actively participate in the strategic encirclement of China, in denying China access to resources and markets. So much to the situation in general terms.

Washington’s bull-in-a-china shop behavior pays no heeds to the realities in Asia. Instead, Washington demonizes faithful old ally like Pakistan while supporting Afghanistan’s Communists and drug dealers, and allowing India to stir the Afghan pot – all for the sake of new energy pipelines.
As Henry Kissinger cynically noted, being America’s ally is more dangerous than being its enemy.

SOROS’ INTERNATIONAL CRISIS GROUP STIRRING UP THE SOUTH CHINA SEA

With respect to the territorial dispute about areas in the South China Sea, between the Philippines and China, a recent report by the European, Soros Funded, International Crisis Group, ICG, is revealing US/NATO´s strategy. xlviii

While the ICG is overtly claiming to be working on crisis resolution, the report has in fact to be understood as an analysis of, how the crisis can be managed to secure the best possible outcome for the modo-colonial and globalist powers.

An analysis of the report reveals that the strategy that is being discussed, among other, contains the following elements:

• Attempts to infiltrate or influence Chinese military structures to create inter-services competition.

• Attempts to influence the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs to create disputes between the Foreign Ministry, Ministry of Defense, and Military Services

• Aggravating rivalry between the Chinese Maritime Forces and Law Enforcement agencies with maritime capabilities and duties, about the allocation of resources, competencies, roles, and responsibilities with respect to the South China Sea.

• If possible, the creation of conflict between the Ministries of Defense, Foreign Affairs and the Interior.

• Creation of regional rivalries by creating the above mentioned conflicts, facilitated by the fact that high level Chinese law enforcement officers, military officers, and their likes have ties to regional political structures and interests in China.

• Systematic defamation of China´s claims to sovereignty over parts of the South China Sea. The defamation will be based on referring to ”China´s Nationalist Ambitions”, on fear-mongering due to the fact that the so-called nine-dashed line that appears on Chinese maps encompasses most of the South China Sea, the interpretation of the fact that the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, UNCLOS, supports Chinese claims is denounced as Chinese nationalism.

• Creating Mistrust to the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, so that regional partners may perceive reassurances and negotiated settlements by the Chinese Ministry of Foreign affairs as not trustworthy.

• Undermining the credibility of Chinese Diplomacy by exaggerating inter ministerial conflicts or conflicts of interests between military and ministry.

• Defamation of Chinese diplomacy at ASEAN and the seeding of doubt whether China is willing, or based on domestic politics able, to implement the Declaration of Conduct in the South China Sea.

• The creation of mistrust within ASEAN, whether China is willing to, or if the Chinese government is able, to adhere to the ASEAN six-point-principles accord about the South China Sea, even though China assures that the principles are in accord with China´s policy on the South China Sea settlement. xlix

• Using the creation of doubts, whether the Chinese government is capable of controlling eventual unauthorized, unilateral action by regional Chinese military or law-enforcement services as pretext to increase the US/NATO military footprint in the Philippines, India, Vietnam, Lao, and Thailand.

• Using the same arguments to pressure the government of Australia to increase military spending on maritime “defense” forces.

• The positioning of China as a hegemonic nation with ambitions to dominate the region politically and militarily, to prevent China´s access to markets and resources, and to create an atmosphere of mistrust towards Chinese initiatives for joint ventures, political, economical cooperation.
The positioning of China as nationalist military power with regional ambitions for dominance to sow mistrust that subverts regional, bilateral and multilateral initiatives towards security.

Others could be added, and the International Crisis Group is far from the sole player involved in what could best be described as careful, preparatory initiatives that weaken China politically, economically and militarily in preparation of a long-planned confrontation of Russia and China.

Contd… 

Next: Countering the US/NATO ambition for Global Full Spectrum Dominance and Preserving Peace

Pages 1   2   3   4  5  6

Related Posts:

1. US Soldiers in Nepal on China’s Tibet Border, On a Reconnaissance “Humanitarian Mission” 2. Nepal Running Out of Time
 Source    Title image Remaining images (downwards) 1,  2,  3,  4

YOUR COMMENT IS IMPORTANT

DO NOT UNDERESTIMATE THE POWER OF YOUR COMMENT

Wonders of Pakistan supports freedom of expression and this commitment extends to our readers as well. Constraints however, apply in case of a violation of WoP Comments Policy. We also moderate hate speech, libel and gratuitous insults.
We at Wonders of Pakistan use copyrighted material the use of which may not have always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We make such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” only. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
Advertisements

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: https://wondersofpakistan.wordpress.com/2012/10/25/strategy-for-the-south-east-china-sea-u-s-bid-for-full-spectrum-global-dominance-5-of-6/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

2 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. […] 1. Strategy for the South East China Sea: U.S. Bid for Full Spectrum Global Dominance [5 of 6] 2. Strategy for the South East China Sea: U.S. Bid for Full Spectrum Global Dominance [6 of 6] 3. ‘Muammar Gaddafi’ – A Great Nationalist, Hero or A Tyrant? [3 of 3] 4. Nepal Running Out of Time 5. Frosty welcome for India in Nepal […]

  2. Hi there, I would like to subscribe for this
    blog to get most recent updates, thus where can i do it please help out.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: